Alaska: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)


Examples from State v. Dupier, 118 P.3d 1039 (Alaska 2005)

. . . .

The court of appeals summarized the charges against Dupier, Miller, and Twohy and the trial court proceedings as follows . . . State v. Dupier, 74 P.3d 922, 927-28 (Alaska App. 2003).

. . . .

The facts of this case are undisputed. Appellees John Dupier, Rodman E. Miller, and Philip J. Twohy each held Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) to fish in federal waters. In 2001, after fishing legally in federal waters, the fishers separately attempted to land their catches in Alaska without first obtaining state permits from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). None of the fishers attempted to fish in state waters. The State charged the fishers with possessing commercially taken fish in state waters without having a valid interim-use permit, in violation of 20 AAC 05.110.

. . . .

The scope of the CFEC's authority to require permits within state waters turns on the language in the Alaska statutes governing interim-use permits, particularly AS 16.43.210(a), but also AS 16.43.140(a), AS 16.10.267(a)(1), and AS 16.05.675. Following the court of appeals decision in this case, the legislature amended AS 16.43.210(a) so that it is now clear that the CFEC may issue interim-use permits for all Alaska fisheries, regardless of whether the fishery is subject to limited entry.

. . . .

The State argues that the 2004 amendment to AS 16.43.210(a) serves as a legislative clarification of pre-existing law. But in Hillman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., we reasoned: "While the legislature is fully empowered to declare present law by legislation, it is not institutionally competent to issue opinions as to what a statute passed by an earlier legislature meant." 758 P.2d 1248, 1252-53 (Alaska 1988). We have followed the Hillman rule in a number of subsequent cases. See State, Dep't of Revenue v. OSG Bulk Ships, Inc., 961 P.2d 399, 406 n.13 (Alaska 1998); Univ. of Alaska v. Tumeo, 933 P.2d 1147, 1156 (Alaska 1997); Hickel v. Cowper, 874 P.2d 922, 925 n.7 (Alaska 1994); Flisock v. State, Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 818 P.2d 640, 645 (Alaska 1991); Wrangell Forest Prods. v. Alderson, 786 P.2d 916, 918 n.1 (Alaska 1990). In this case, we decline to treat the 2004 amendment as a legislative clarification of the pre-existing law.

. . . .

Alaska R. App. P. 212(c), http://www.state.ak.us/courts/app.htm#212.

(c) Substantive Requirements.

(1) Brief of Appellant.

The brief of the appellant shall contain the following items under appropriate headings and in the order here indicated:

. . . .

(B) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited.

(C) The constitutional provisions, statutes, court rules, ordinances, and regulations principally relied upon, set out verbatim or their pertinent provisions appropriately summarized.

. . . .

(I) An argument section, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. The section may be preceded by a summary. Each major contention shall be preceded by a heading indicating the subject matter. References to the record shall conform to the requirements of subparagraph (c)(8).

. . . .

(8) References in Briefs to the Record.

(A) References in Cases in Which Excerpts are Prepared.

References in the briefs to parts of the record reproduced in an excerpt shall be to the pages of the excerpt at which those parts appear. The form for references to pages of the excerpt is [Exc. ____ ]. Briefs may reference parts of the record not reproduced in an excerpt. The form for references to pages of the transcript is [Tr. ___ ] and to pages of the trial court file is [R.___ ]. The form for references to untranscribed portions of the electronic record is [CD (#), at Time 00:00:00 or Tape (#), at Log 00:00:00]

. . . .